[He checked, probably, but gave no answer. I had to work it out without help from the group, Mach's principle comes to aid]

Debate

30 March 2017 - 7 April 2017

Groove Shack

I notice quite early in the thread your comment on "angelic movers"?

Why is this concept required exactly? I confess I have not read much further in the forum thread, you may have explained it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not sure it is totally required, after checking out with a Heliocentric that Earth circling round sun would work for billions of years, as far as added matter and lowered momentum is concerned, due to impacts.

Then as Geocentric applying Mach's principle.

But I am not sure they are not required either, since we were not talking about how planets influence each other, and what if some see "tenth planet" as a gravitational must, and it isn't there?

That would prove some non-Newtonian or not-so-simple-Newtonian causality.

However, required or not, angelic movers are a plus per se.

It brings me in line with Christian thinkers like St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas and a few more.

Groove Shack

Yes no problem, at the end of the day a Christian is going to reach the point in his explanations of the Geo-model (and creation of course) where they surely must invoke some kind of supernatural force.

Personally, my explanation for how the heavens started their revolution around the Earth is simply God's Spirit, as there is direct support for this in Genesis.

(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

We know that God created the Earth with water. And we also know that the water covered the entirety of the face of the Earth because later we hear about God gathering up the water into certain areas.

So the Earth is covered with water and God's spirit moved upon the face of the waters. To me I imagine God's spirit moving against/over/upon ALL the waters on the face of the Earth. As we know without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a sphere, this gives the impression of a circular movement for the spirit of God on the waters. An orbital motion in fact. Like God is sending His Spirit around the Earth.

So this concept of a stationary Earth and a supernatural rotational component is introduced very early to the reader.

I also notice modern science has no issue with the universe coming into existence with a spin, although as usual, they are shy to proffer an explanation of how this happened.

----------------

Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

Whether the universe requires continuous supernatural maintenance to keep the momentum going is also doubtful according to Luka Popov:

----------------

"If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."

As to the DAILY movement westward, I think it is all God's work and you are pretty right.

It is the longer movements eastward in relation to fixed stars (a stellar month for moon, a stellar year for sun and so on, some involving retrogrades - there are no retrogrades in the daily movement - and also the movemens of comets) which I attribute to angelic movers.

I have no trouble with your reading on how all of heaven started moving, since that is about the daily westward movement.

There is Scriptural support for angelic movers too, in the sense which does not contradict above.

Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack

Yes agreed, I think the initiation of the "proper" eastward motions of the sun, moon etc happen in Genesis 1:17.

(Genesis 1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

He SET them. Strongs concordance offers Set (FORTH) as one possible translation of:
נתן
nâthan
naw-than'

Isn't this God setting forth the lights in their "proper" orbit through the firmament?

Again, once they have been set forth in their orbit it is arguable whether or not they would need supernatural maintenance to continue said motion as sheer angular momentum would be enough, regardless which way the actual fabric of the universe is rotating diurnally.

Thoughts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Whether angular momentum would be enough or not, angular momentum is inferior to man in ontological dignity, and angels are superior to man in ontological dignity, so it is preferrable to think what is higher up, if not superior in itself (and balls of gas are not) at least has a higher immediate causality.

Groove Shack

I think as Geocentrists talking to opponents we need to explain all the dynamics in terms of known science as far as possible until we start invoking supernatural involvement. Just my personal opinion. You can spook a lot of people, especially atheists, by getting too spiritual too early.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let's put it like this: talking to opponents is different whether you are arguing over the web - before an audience - or in private (including emails not intended for publication).

But one thing is like : if you think a thing is true, you may wait with saying it, but you may not deny it.

If I don't think the Newtonian explanation is true or the whole truth, I don't have a right to towt it as my own conviction.

I can refer to Sungenis, I can say "Newtonian vectors can be part of the reason, but do not exclude angels as the principal movers", I can do this or that, but I cannot try to master a complete explanation I don't believe in and use that for apologetics while using something else for my own very private edification.

Ramandu and Coriakin (1), or (2) Oyarsa of Malacandra and Oyarsa of Perelandra, to put it in the terms of CSL.

In Paris, where I am, position 1 was condemned by bishop Stephen II Tempier 740 years ago, which leaves me with position 2.

In England, the condemnations of Tempier were adopted in all dioceses.

This means that all colonies of either England or France, and all former colonies, should avoid position 1.

However, if you are in a place neither originally colonised by either, like an Amerindian reservation or the states formerly belonging to Spain (Flórida, Tejas, Nueva Méjico, Arizona, California la Alta) you are free to prefer position 1.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Isn't there a third pretty obvious meaning to Job 38:7 that the stars are being compared to angels? It's figurative?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time stars are used to represent angels, both being numerous and pure.

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

I mean...do you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star

There is plenty of figurative language in Job 38:7 and I don't think there is any need to take that particular verse literally or semi-literally.

It's interesting to look at the Catholic view of things but being a simple Christian I'm not feeling a burning need to pick apart the words Thomas Aquinas or Augustine on this subject.

What you've given me from the bible I'm afraid is not convincing at all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's figurative?"

I don't think that is very obvious as the right answer, especially not if compared to Baruch or a place in Judges.

That Jesus is said to be "morning star" may be figurative, but may also mean he took over the job as "Oyarsa" - angelic mover - when Satan, "the fallen morning star", lost that job as falling.

Wonder whether it refers to Mercury or Venus if so.

The bishops of the seven Churches are to Jesus as man like angels are to God : emissaries.

That said, they certainly do have angels, which may be angels that also are angelic movers each of a star.

Also, not quite comparable to Job, since Apocalypse is a prophetic book while Job is getting quizzed on precisely Creation.

On your view, we shouldn't think of the "womb of ice" to refer to the ice age either, I suppose?

It is also wrong to consider Catholicism as one denomination and non-Catholics as "simply a Christian", though I suppose you know no better.

We are like Juda, you are like Samaria.

Check out John chapter 4 on what Jesus said at the Well of Sychar.

Groove Shack

So what your saying is that a figurative or poetic meaning to Job 38:7 does not even deserve to be on your list as number 3?

1) Stars themselves are alive.

2) Stars have movers that are alive.

3) It's a poetic comparison between angels and stars.

?

"womb of ice"?

You've completely lost me there mate. That's not even what the text says...it says "Out of whose womb came the ice?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, dealing with your 3.

What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars if neither stars are a class of angels nor angels carry all or some stars?

Dealing with apocalypse.

Suppose St John believed like St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and I.

We know that the angels of the seven Churches, as recipients of mail, were the bishops of these Churches.

The text figures very well if we consider that a bishop holds up the light of faith to the soul, like angels hold up the light of stars to our eyes.

Hence, all "poetic comparisons" between stars and angels can be considered as expanding on the fact that stars are anyway usually connected to angels.

We also know that book of Henoch at least was around some century or two before Christ.

Its astronomic book (which seems erroneous on calendar matters) explains the movement of the sun in this matter, there is an angel conducting it.

Hence, my mechanism of angels conducting stars was at least an option for those considering in some ways astronomy in the time of Christ. Well, this option was certainly not explicitly rejected by Christ in the words in the canonic Gospels.

Out of whose womb came the ice makes sense if you know how glaciers look. And if you think of the ice age.

This means "womb" was not an idle metaphor. There is perhaps not exactly anyone's womb involved, but a glacier going forth looks a bit like a buttocks first or head first birth. The words are poetic, not because they are inexact, but because they are exact. The frost also is not exactly engendered - but even so, it looks like offspring or harvest of sth, like the harvest of manna. Here too, the word is poetic because it is exact.

So, on your view, stars are not a lower class of angels, not a class of spirits just below angels and not moved by angels either. Where is YOUR poetic motive for comparing an angel to a star, if so?

I am not contesting that the Bible gives a connection, but if it were ONLY a poetic one, how do you explain it as poetry?

"do you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?"

Satan is called fallen morning star in Isaiah, Jesus is called morning star in an epistle of Peter.

I think the word of God is moving one star which was previously moved by Satan before he fell (note, this means the fall of Satan was after day four, or after its creation deed - not all Catholic theologians would agree on that).

But suppose instead we are speaking of leading a choir of angels not connected to stars per se, the comparison also makes sense if morning star is leading a similar procession of stars, moved by their angels.

Therefore, the places you took cannot be used against angels moving stars.

Now I have a place which totally excludes your interpretation 3:

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Either looks like my 1, stars are alive, or my 2, in which case angels are using their stars not just as "candles", but also as "battlestars". How would you fit in 3 there?

Interruption

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I might mention here, as a separate subthread, I also have an extra-Biblical reason for taking angelic movers.

This allows the phenomena known as "aberration" and "parallax" to be a dance of angels holding stars, in time with but not necessarily in pace with the sun.

This, to my mind, is the simplest way to get around the distant starlight problem.

[No subthread here as yet,, but answers to previous were added below:]

Back to debate

where it left off on subthread.

Groove Shack

[missed this one]

"What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars"

Erm.....they are both up in heaven...being a permanent fixture thereof? They are both pure and true, and shewith the handiwork of God? They are both cloaked in light and glory?

Any number of things mate really. An unbiased, simple reading without any added influence from extra biblical writings and that is the clear meaning of the passage I feel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added later]

I missed this one.

These are reason why angels would be more fitting movers of stars than Newtonian forces.

[back to]

Groove Shack

"Judges 5:[20]...How would you fit in 3 there?"

Exactly the same. Figuratively meaning angels. Either the angels fought for Israel from heaven....or maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You are reading waaaaay too much into that one my new friend. Battlestars? Really?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the most classical interpretation would be things like Saturn giving cold and unfortune and Moon wetness and slippery slopes and things like that to Sisera - stars giving morally relevant influences, as in astrology.

If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?

Here is what I found in Cornelius a Lapide on the matter, if you read Latin:

And the idea can be traced at least back to the Book of Henoch, canonic or not, which was extant c. 200 BC.

It's an idea which seems to be somewhat persistent, not just a passing fad.

Groove Shack

"If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?"

As I said...maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You say this is a persistent idea. Anyone in this group agree with you? Or anyone in general?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in general we have the writer of the last classic and uncontroversial astronomic handbook which was geocentric : Riccioli.

He lists four options on how celestial bodies are moved : God moves them directly, God made them mechanistically apt to move, celestial bodies are alive, celestial bodies are not alive themselves but moved by angels.

The list of names he gives for this fourth option, which he considered the most common one, is VERY impressive.

So, yes. At least among those who are already in Heaven.

This group? Don't know.

Others at present living on Earth? Probably at least one or two fans of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.

Here is my resumé on Riccioli, linking to the Latin original, if you are interested:

This is an option for Riccioli but in your opinion it can't be considered?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's an option in astrophysics, but hardly an option for Job 38:7 or an option for Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack

But for Riccioli it was...?....or not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Groove Shack , for Riccioli it was a theoretical option which he rejected as less probable.

His most probable option was his "most common one", namely angelic movers.

Why does this seem to sound some discord in your ears?

Groove Shack

So him saying it was less probable means he rejected it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, he didn't reject it as impossible, he only rejected it as less probable.

He even considers it on and off true for stars whenever their angels want to go down to enlighten a man or adore the Eucharist on a Catholic altar.

Of course those operations are more fitting for angels than moving stars, nevertheless when an angel who normally moves a star wants to do such a thing, he can just leave his star in the hands of God and God will take care of it in his absence.

But God doing so all the time for every star seems a bit awkward to fit with Job, Baruch and Judges.

Groove Shack

I'm gonna leave it there Hans-Georg......nice chat :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine with me.

You see

this leaves me a very nice cue for doing the mirror of the FB debate on this blog post.